Really? What would you do, oh brave leader of the suicide squad. He's just being honest. The only deterrent would be collateral damage, and if they were to decide to carpet bomb areas of resistance, what would you suggest? Hide in a bunker? Sorry, they can reach those by adjusting the timer of detonation.

Hey, Quitter #2, I just want to know IF something happens and that's a big IF I can say I went fighting for what was right, not rolling over on my hands and knees taking it. If that's for you, then so be it, but if rights are being trampled Syria style then I'd rather, at the end of the day, know I fought for something instead of quitting, quitter.

Well, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (since expired) did ban weapons based on their appearance, not lethality.

I mean, it literally banned semi-automatic rifles for having two of the following: A folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or muzzle that could accommodate grenades.

There's a reason that the expiration of the 1994 AWB didn't do much, it's that it didn't do very much in the first place.

I just said "bayonet mount" because it's one of the things that specifically identified you as an "Assault Weapon" in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Ban.

Which was stupid.

If someone is threatening you and they have a knife and a gun, it's not usually the knife you're worried about.

I mean, sure the person with the bayonet is going to be incrementally more threatening to you, but not meaningfully so. The guy with the flash suppressor (also singled out in the 1994 AWB) is only really more dangerous to you if a) it's dark and b) he has to shoot repeatedly in a short period of time. I'm personally much more worried about that first shot than the fifth or sixth.

Well in an age where the military is investing heavily in automated weapons systems and robots and taking the human element out of warfare and enforcement. I'm less and less inclined to give up my right to own a gun. I don't even own a gun, but I want the right.

I do personally think it would be a good idea to ban caseless ammunition for civilian use, since it really only justifies its existence from a "military logistics" perspective. There's no practical and defensible reason for a civilian to use caseless ammunition.

It's funny how someone that did there time (and somehow knows my life up to this point) would just roll over then, specifically you, not those in the branch you served in because I'm assuming that's what you meant, quitter.

My beef isn't with killing one person. It's with killing a whole bunch of people. And several of those add-ons do indeed make killing sprees easier.

You seem to assume I'm okay with semi-automatic weapons. I'm not. I've already said that I'd prefer it if we were like Japan and you could only get a weapon for hunting or sport shooting, which is the only legitimate reason I see to own a gun. I personally don't like any gun designed strictly for killing people. That includes semi-automatic handguns and rifles.

However, I can understand it if people feel the need to own a gun for self-defense. If they want to own a handgun for that reason, it's a position I can understand and a compromise I can live with. However, I don't see the need for rifles designed for killing people -- if you're picking someone off at 70 yards, they're not an imminent threat.

My personal preferences and definitions for what's acceptable aren't really the same as what I think is a realistic policy. A reinstatement of the assault weapons ban we've already passed before seems like something reasonable people should agree on, because it clearly does more good than harm. I'd like restrictions with more teeth in them, but it's a good place to start.

Among other things, I find it incredibly hilarious that Natural Born Killers is claimed to promote "life as a joke and murder as a way of life". Clearly Wayne LaPierre never even bothered to understand what the film was about.

I mean, I my beef against semi-automatic weapons is that I shoot left-handed, and I don't like hot casings being ejected in my face, and left-handed ones are rare/expensive. But I don't think that's a good basis for policy.

If someone is coming for you, 70 yards is too close for comfort to me. I don't keep my 2 rifles out of my safe, but I have them for when I want them. What harm does it do if I spend some money on a brick and go off to the range for fun as long as I am responsible there? It's the people who aren't responsible and/or know anything about gun safety that are the ones to worry about.